On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 08:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 08:34 +0100, Ola Olsson wrote: > > > but maybe it should be > > > > > > WARN_ON((ops->add_station && !ops->del_station) || > > > (!opt->add_station && ops->del_station)) > > > > > > etc... > > > > Ahh, got it! I really like your idea but I assume it's quite rare to > > implement the "stop/del/leave/disconnect" callbacks and at the same > > time forget to implement the "start/add/join/connect". You will > > probably find out pretty quickly if the "start" functions are > > missing, > > while it might take some time debugging why you lack the "stop" > > functions (reinitialization issues/ resource leaks for example). > > > > With that said, don't take my word for it, I was only following the > > existing pattern and I assume someone else had a good reason in the > > first place. > > > > Pretty much what you said :) Following patterns is good, I just think the pattern could be trivially improved. The test is a runtime check on what would ideally be done at compile time. Using WARN_ON(!a ^ !b) which is logically the same as what I wrote above for clarity is simply a bit more coverage and maybe even a bit run-time faster. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
